John/William - same person?

daj · Post by **daj** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 4:03 pm

Looking for some guidance please....

William Jamieson, b 5 jan 1772. Parents listed as William Jamieson & wife Janet Wright.

I can find no marriage of William to Janet, however searching for any Jamieson to Wright I only can find John Jamieson to Janet 19 July 1768; so no William to Janet marriage (ever!)

Search for births for Janet Wright as mother I get...

William, 1772 as noted at the top of this message (father William)
John, 1775 (father John)
Margaret, 1776 (father John)
Andrew, 1779 (father John)
Janet, 1781 (father John).
Daniel, 1785 (father John)

So Janet Wright had 6 children (all with a Jamieson, either Williman or John).

Do you think William & John are the same person?

Any thoughts appreciated

David

Post by **SarahND** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 4:26 pm

Hi David,
It's hard to tell so far back, since the records are sparse, but there is a gap between the first two children. Could the first husband William have died and then Janet married John (either a relative of William or not)? Have you checked to see if by some miracle the death records exist for the time and place that interest you?

Regards,
Sarah

daj · Post by **daj** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:13 pm

Hi Sarah

There is one death record for a William aged 40 in March 1771. If it is him, his wife (Janet) had only just become pregnant (if she had their son William in January 72).

If only there was a marriage record for William and Janet and not just John and Janet it would make more sense.

killearnan · Post by **killearnan** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 8:20 pm

Have you looked at the original records to see if occupations/residences/etc. match up? I've also made the case for a relationship based on witnesses to events, so that's also worth checking out. Oh, and be sure to check out what all the kids named named their kids.......

For a couple fun

cases I've had with wrong names, see my post in this thread, especially the absent-minded minister who recorded a bride as having the maiden surname Little (a prolific local family) when it it was really Small (a just-about-as-prolific family from a couple towns away).

So I wouldn't rule it out, but I wouldn't jump to say definitely, either.

daj · Post by **daj** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 8:23 pm

killearnan wrote:Have you looked at the original records to see if occupations/residences/etc. match up?

I've downloaded copies of the hand written Parish records from ScotlandsPeople. Is there more beyond that?

killearnan · Post by **killearnan** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 8:35 pm

daj wrote:I've downloaded copies of the hand written Parish records from ScotlandsPeople. Is there more beyond that?

No - but some people stop at the on-line indexes

If William and John are described as having the same (or very similar occupations, like shepherd and ag. lab.), the likelihood they are the same man is greater than if one is a blacksmith and the other is an agricultural laborer, for example.

1) What did all the children involved name their children? There may be patterns there that can help you tease out details. Especially if William b. 1772 named his first son John

2) This is getting early enough the records may not exist, but is there a John the son of William and Janet (Margaret a fair bit less likely but possible...) who could be the father in question? In that case, whoever recorded the first birth just smooshed a couple generations together

LesleyB · Post by **LesleyB** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 9:46 pm

Hi david

I can find no marriage of William to Janet

It maybe won't solve the problem in this case but remember that anyone called Janet can turn up in a number of guises: Jane, Jean, Jeannie, (and the favourite) Jessie or even Jess.

Best wishes
Lesley